DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 24 April 2024.
Claims 1-20 are under examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1–20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,997,576.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,997,576 B2 recites a method including:
determining a timing of a first data slot for a first communication technology;
adjusting the timing of the first data slot relative to a time indexed data slot for a second communication technology, wherein the first communication technology is a mesh communication technology and the second communication technology is different from the first communication technology; and
communicating during both the adjusted first data slot and the time indexed data slot.
Thus, the reference patent already discloses adjusting the timing of communication opportunities associated with two different communication technologies so that a device may communicate during both communication opportunities.
The presently claimed invention similarly recites adjusting timing between communication opportunities associated with two communication protocols and performing communication operations using the two protocols during the adjusted time slots.
The additional recitations of clustering the communication opportunities into paired time slots, sequentially communicating during the paired time slots, and transitioning the device between active and sleep modes represent predictable scheduling and power-management implementations of coordinating communication timing between multiple wireless communication technologies.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that aligning or clustering communication opportunities associated with different protocols would be an obvious design choice to reduce device wake events and improve power efficiency.
Claims 2-19 of the instant application are similarly not patentably distinct from the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,997,576 B2.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,558,725.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,558,725 recites a method including:
determining a timing of a mesh data slot for mesh communication;
adjusting the timing of the mesh data slot relative to a time indexed Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) data slot for BLE communication to produce an adjusted mesh data slot; and
communicating during both the adjusted mesh data slot and the BLE data slot.
Thus, the reference patent already discloses adjusting the timing of communication opportunities associated with two different communication technologies (mesh and BLE) so that the device may communicate during both communication opportunities.
The presently claimed invention similarly recites adjusting the timing of communication opportunities associated with two communication protocols and performing communication operations using the two protocols during the adjusted time slots.
The additional recitations of clustering time slots into pairs, sequential communication during the paired time slots, and transitioning the device between active and sleep modes represent predictable scheduling and power-management implementations of coordinating communication timing between mesh and BLE communication technologies.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that clustering or aligning protocol communication opportunities would be an obvious design choice to reduce device wake events and thereby improve power efficiency in systems implementing the scheduling scheme disclosed in the reference patent.
Claims 2-19 of the instant application are similarly not patentably distinct from the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,558,725.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugaya (US 2007/0053315 A1) in view of Banerjea (US 2015/0245351).
Regarding claim 1, Sugaya discloses a method comprising: Sugaya describes operation of wireless communication apparatuses forming a network and performing communications according to defined superframe timing structures in which communication operations are performed during defined time periods and power saving states occur during other time periods. For example, Sugaya discloses that “a wireless communication system includes plural wireless communication apparatuses which form an ad-hoc network.” (¶ [0016]).
Sugaya discloses causing, by a wireless device, a timing of a first set of periodic time slots to be adjusted relative to a second set of periodic time slots by teaching wireless communication apparatuses operating according to periodic superframe timing structures in which communication timing is controlled and coordinated. (¶ [0094]) For example, Sugaya discloses that “an operating state of each superframe of each wireless communication apparatus is determined from three operating states: an active state in which beacon signal transmission/reception and data transmission/reception are performed as necessary; a sleep state in which beacon signal transmission/reception and data transmission/reception are not performed; and a pre-receive state in which a beacon signal is received.” This disclosure teaches a periodic communication structure in which communication timing is scheduled within superframes. ¶ [0016]
Sugaya discloses to cluster in time pairs of time slots of the first and second sets, wherein each pair of time slots comprises a time slot of the first set and a time slot of the second set by teaching coordinated scheduling of communication operations within defined superframe intervals so that communication operations occur during designated periods while the device remains inactive during other periods. Sugaya describes communication occurring during defined active superframes and inactivity during sleep superframes, thereby coordinating communication opportunities within the periodic timing structure. (¶ [0093, 0102])
Sugaya discloses wherein the first set is associated with a first communication protocol, and the second set is associated with a second communication protocol by teaching that wireless communication apparatuses operate in wireless communication systems that support communication operations according to defined communication procedures during scheduled communication timing. (¶ [0129, 0133])
Sugaya further discloses transition the wireless device to an active mode by teaching that the wireless communication apparatus operates in “an active state in which beacon signal transmission/reception and data transmission/reception are performed as necessary.” (¶ [0016])
Sugaya further discloses after transitioning the wireless device to the active mode, communicating, by the wireless device, during a first pair of time slots of the pairs of time slots using the first and second communication protocols in a sequential manner by teaching performing communication operations during the active superframe when transmission and reception operations occur according to the scheduled communication timing. (¶ [0092])
Sugaya further discloses after communicating during the first pair of time slots, transitioning the wireless device to a sleep mode by teaching “a sleep state in which beacon signal transmission/reception and data transmission/reception are not performed.” (¶ [0016])
Sugaya does not explicitly disclose wherein the first communication protocol is a mesh protocol.
Banerjea discloses wireless communication devices operating using mesh networking protocols in which devices communicate with other nodes in a mesh network and exchange messages across the network. (fig. 1; ¶ [0084])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the wireless communication scheduling and timing control of Sugaya using the mesh networking communication protocol of Banerjea so that devices participating in a mesh network could coordinate communications while maintaining power saving behavior through active and sleep periods.
Regarding claim 2, Sugaya discloses the method of claim 1 as previously set forth. Sugaya further teaches time-division communication in which transmissions occur in designated communication slots within periodic communication timing structures. Sugaya discloses that a wireless station performs data transmission and reception during active communication intervals associated with the communication protocol. (¶ [0130]) Thus, Sugaya teaches “communication during the first pair of time slots comprises: communicating using the first communication protocol during a first data slot of the first pair of time slots; and after the first data slot, communicating using the second communication protocol during a second data slot of the first pair of time slots.” In Sugaya, communication opportunities within the timing structure allow sequential transmissions within successive time slots, thereby teaching communication using different protocols in sequential slots of a slot pair. Banerjae further discloses communicating in a mesh network according to both a first and a second wireless protocol. (¶ [0017])
Regarding claim 3, Sugaya discloses the method of claim 1 as previously set forth. Sugaya further teaches that within an active communication interval, communication processes such as transmission processing and reception processing are performed sequentially depending on whether a beacon has been received or a transmission opportunity has arrived (Sugaya ¶¶ [0129]–[0130]). Claim 3 recites “communication during the first pair of time slots comprises: communicating using the second communication protocol during a first data slot of the first pair of time slots; and after the first data slot, communicating using the first communication protocol during a second data slot of the first pair of time slots.” While Sugaya illustrates one ordering of communication operations in Figure 11 (Steps S110–S111), Banerjea further discloses coordinating multiple wireless protocols within a unified awake window and performing protocol operations sequentially within that window (Banerjea ¶¶ [0053]–[0054]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to swap the order of protocol operations (i.e., communicating using the second protocol first and the first protocol second) depending on implementation needs such as network priority, scheduling constraints, or hardware availability.
Regarding claim 4, Sugaya further discloses correcting transmission timing relative to another wireless apparatus by adjusting the communication timing in the direction of the time axis in order to match the timing of a partner station (Sugaya ¶ [0140]). Claim 4 recites “wherein causing the timing of the first set of periodic time slots to be adjusted relative to the second set of periodic time slots comprises causing a delay in the timing of the first set of periodic time slots.” When the partner station’s timing occurs later than the currently scheduled timing, the correction necessarily requires delaying the timing of the scheduled slot structure. Accordingly, Sugaya teaches or suggests adjusting the timing by causing a delay (Sugaya ¶ [0140]).
Regarding claim 5, Sugaya further discloses correcting communication timing relative to another wireless device by adjusting the timing along the time axis to achieve synchronization (Sugaya ¶ [0140]). Claim 5 recites “wherein causing the timing of the first set of periodic time slots to be adjusted relative to the second set of periodic time slots comprises advancing, by the wireless device, the timing of the first set of periodic time slots.” If the partner station’s timing occurs earlier than the current timing, the correction necessarily requires advancing the scheduled timing. Thus Sugaya’s bidirectional timing correction teaches advancing the timing of the first set of periodic time slots (Sugaya ¶ [0140]).
Regarding claim 6, Sugaya further discloses that communication during the active communication period includes both transmission processing and reception processing within scheduled communication intervals (Sugaya ¶ [0129], Steps S110–S111). Claim 6 recites “wherein communicating during the first pair of time slots using the second communication protocol comprises: receiving, by the wireless device, a first message; and transmitting, by the wireless device, a second message.” Banerjea further discloses wireless protocols such as Bluetooth communications performing receive and transmit operations sequentially within coordinated communication windows (Banerjea ¶¶ [0053]–[0054]). It would have been obvious to perform both reception and transmission for the second protocol to enable bidirectional communication within the shared communication window.
Regarding claim 7, Sugaya further discloses that the first communication protocol operates in an ad-hoc network environment (Sugaya ¶ [0043]). In such networks, wireless apparatuses exchange beacon signals with neighboring apparatuses in order to synchronize network operation. Claim 7 recites “wherein communicating during the first pair of time slots using the first communication protocol comprises receiving, by the wireless device, a first mesh packet.” Sugaya specifically teaches reception processing to receive beacon signals from peripheral wireless communication apparatuses (Sugaya ¶ [0129], Step S111). Such beacon signals correspond to packets transmitted within a mesh or ad-hoc communication network.
Regarding claim 8, Sugaya further discloses transmission processing of beacon signals within the ad-hoc network during communication intervals (Sugaya ¶ [0129], Step S110). Claim 8 recites “wherein communicating during the first pair of time slots using the first communication protocol comprises transmitting, by the wireless device, a ping.” The beacon signal transmitted in Sugaya serves to announce the presence of the wireless apparatus and synchronize communication timing with neighboring devices, which corresponds to a ping-type signaling message within a wireless network.
Regarding claim 9, Sugaya further discloses that the wireless communication network operates as an ad-hoc network in which devices communicate directly with neighboring apparatuses without centralized infrastructure (Sugaya ¶ [0043]). Claim 9 recites “wherein the first communication protocol is a flooding-based protocol.” In such ad-hoc networks, synchronization and control information are broadcast to neighboring devices, which may further propagate the information through the network, corresponding to flooding-type communication behavior.
Regarding claim 10, Sugaya discloses coordinating communication timing between different wireless communication systems but does not explicitly identify the second protocol as Bluetooth Low Energy. Banerjea further discloses wireless devices coordinating communication operations using Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) (Banerjea ¶ [0046]). Claim 10 recites “wherein the second communication protocol is a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) protocol.” It would have been obvious to employ BLE as the second communication protocol in Sugaya’s system because BLE is a well-known low-power wireless communication protocol suitable for intermittent communication and coexistence with other wireless communication systems.
Regarding claim 11, Sugaya does not specifically disclose that this mesh network is a BLE-mesh protocol. However, Banerjea discloses a wireless device capable of operating multiple protocols in an aligned timing window, include Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) (¶ [0084, 0085])
Regarding claim 12, Sugaya discloses a wireless device corresponding the method of claim 1, and is thus similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 13–20, Sugaya and Banerjea disclose the limitations of claim 12 as previously set forth. Claims 13–20 recite substantially identical subject matter as recited in claims 2–9, respectively, but in apparatus form, and are thus similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claims 2–9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468